Howto use PhysX without 3DMax or Maya
by Roland Stralberg · in Torque 3D Professional · 09/08/2009 (9:44 am) · 10 replies
Integration of PhysX in T3D is of course a good thing.
However it raises some problems at least for the users
who can't afford 3dsmax or Maya, which supports generation
of PhysX files.
Is there any low price tool/editor that can do the work needed?
How should developers without 3dsmax or maya be able to get
physics into their game.
Thanks
Roland
However it raises some problems at least for the users
who can't afford 3dsmax or Maya, which supports generation
of PhysX files.
Is there any low price tool/editor that can do the work needed?
How should developers without 3dsmax or maya be able to get
physics into their game.
Thanks
Roland
#2
GG:
So this means that T3D is not usable
when talking of physics support for
customers that do not own the only
two applications supporting it,
3dsmax and Maya.
I understand that you do not have control
over third-party applications and thats fair enough.
But as Torque has a history of a engine for the "poor"
Indie developers, I'm a bit surprised that no alternative
as Bullet, Newton or ODE is not supported "out of the box".
Is there any good reason for this decision of leaving the
'poor' people behind. In my mind I can understand that PhysX
is great for the company developers that can afford 3dsmax
and those expensive applications and of course it's a good idea
to support those. But I'm a bit surprised that GarageGames don't
offer a build-in solution for the 'single' developer with a
limited budget.
Wouldn't it be a great idea to add "in-box" support for one of
the other formats for us. I guess that would not be a huge effort
by GarageGames to implement.
If this is not in your interest or in you plans it would at least
be very helpful if GG wrote some article describing how to integrate
on of those using C++, targeting people with normal knowledge of
C++ programming.
Roland
09/08/2009 (2:43 pm)
David: Thank's for the info. GG:
So this means that T3D is not usable
when talking of physics support for
customers that do not own the only
two applications supporting it,
3dsmax and Maya.
I understand that you do not have control
over third-party applications and thats fair enough.
But as Torque has a history of a engine for the "poor"
Indie developers, I'm a bit surprised that no alternative
as Bullet, Newton or ODE is not supported "out of the box".
Is there any good reason for this decision of leaving the
'poor' people behind. In my mind I can understand that PhysX
is great for the company developers that can afford 3dsmax
and those expensive applications and of course it's a good idea
to support those. But I'm a bit surprised that GarageGames don't
offer a build-in solution for the 'single' developer with a
limited budget.
Wouldn't it be a great idea to add "in-box" support for one of
the other formats for us. I guess that would not be a huge effort
by GarageGames to implement.
If this is not in your interest or in you plans it would at least
be very helpful if GG wrote some article describing how to integrate
on of those using C++, targeting people with normal knowledge of
C++ programming.
Roland
#3
09/08/2009 (8:17 pm)
Maybe you could do it and post it as a resource. ;) 
#4
09/09/2009 (1:10 am)
@Roland: You might check out the Game Mech Kit. Yuri posted that the kit integrates either Bullet or ODE linky. If that works for you then Blender should also work as a cheap (free) 3d tool. I haven't used Blender so someone else familiar with it might have more info as to whether it can export a model with Bullet physics.
#5
09/09/2009 (3:56 am)
I have looked around a little and found this physics editor Scythe Physics Editor. Maybe it can be used together with T3D. Its worth some investigation at least. It supports PhysX, Newton, PAL and ODE
#6
09/09/2009 (12:23 pm)
I would love to know if you guys get this working it looks very cool.
#7
As for Bone's suggestion, Yuri's GMK implementation of Bullet is pretty nice. It uses convex primitives for collision geometry which can be done in any cad app that can export a hierarchy AFAIK. He picked up where GG missed the boat. ;)
09/09/2009 (1:49 pm)
[metaphysical interpretation needed]Roland, ..Here, You'll usually find good intentions, followed by half baked execution. Once your taste-buds adapt to that bitter offset, you can usually find a semi-comfortable spot on one of the many lumpy couches. [/metaphysical interpretation needed]As for Bone's suggestion, Yuri's GMK implementation of Bullet is pretty nice. It uses convex primitives for collision geometry which can be done in any cad app that can export a hierarchy AFAIK. He picked up where GG missed the boat. ;)
#8
Thanks guys for that advice.
Cheers
Roland
09/09/2009 (2:55 pm)
I will definitely have a look at GMKThanks guys for that advice.
Cheers
Roland
#9
It just comes down to time... what you see is what you get for Torque 3D 1.0. As we move to 1.1 and 1.2 time will permit us to improve the physics abstraction api and how you import physics enabled content.
09/09/2009 (5:26 pm)
The other idea that has been floated around is supporting PhysX thru Collada which has some standard tags for physics properties.It just comes down to time... what you see is what you get for Torque 3D 1.0. As we move to 1.1 and 1.2 time will permit us to improve the physics abstraction api and how you import physics enabled content.
Associate David Montgomery-Blake
David MontgomeryBlake